Hotlaws are laws that make it difficult or impossible for you to use or apply clean energy, for instance wind and solar power. Also, did you know that in some regions there is only one electric company, and effectively, anyone who wants to do anything to improve their lives regarding energy has to ask them permission? And then wait for them to get around to approving the process? Very often, there is Municipal red tape that also slows this process down, these are also Hotlaws.
While it is difficult to get everyone to find agreement when it comes to finding new laws to pass, there are some existing laws that clearly need to be rescinded. This is a good place to start on the road to agreement.
What are the Hotlaws in your area? Leave a comment about some of the difficulties you've experienced attempting to apply new-energy technologies.
Here is an example of a Hotlaw problem:
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-solar8may08,0,3494064.story
Rebate rule chills sales of solar
Installers fear collapse as many homeowners choose to avoid associated higher utility costs.
By Marc Lifsher, Times Staff Writer
May 8, 2007
SACRAMENTO — California homeowners are rejecting new rebates for solar power equipment, saying the state has made installing the rooftop panels far more costly than expected.
As a result, Public Utilities Commission reports show a decline of 78% in rebate requests in the first three months of this year, compared with last year, and the solar installation industry says it is threatened with collapse across much of California.
At issue is a requirement the state added Jan. 1 for getting a rebate under Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's Million Solar Roofs program. Applicants must first sign up for costly pricing plans offered by utilities that charge more for their electricity during hours of peak demand.
Alfred Cellier had plans to install a $17,000 solar system at his Rancho Palos Verdes home until he penciled out the cost of the new state requirements and decided against it.
The retired electronics engineer said he was all for solar power "because it's green and the right thing to do, but I don't want to be treated unfairly."
Sue Kateley, executive director of the California Solar Energy Industries Assn., said the rebate changes backfired. "It's a mess," she said. "It was everyone's intent to expand the use of solar in California, not throw it into the ditch."
Many homeowners quickly decided that it might not be worth going solar under the new requirements. The costs would be burdensome for those who couldn't afford or lacked the roof space to buy systems that would supply all of their electricity needs.
The unintended glitch was created in December, when the PUC moved to implement the law by requiring that solar users switch to the higher "time of use" rates for their supplemental electricity.
Industry experts say that with the higher rates, solar power offers less savings on electricity bills and may not justify the investment of more than $10,000 in solar panels — even with a rebate of as much as 50% of the cost and a federal tax credit.
What's worse, some people in the Inland Empire and the desert might see their bills rise after putting solar panels on their roofs, the experts add.
"The solar industry in the desert in the Southern California Edison territory is dead until this thing is fixed," said Pat Conlon, an energy-efficiency expert with the city of Palm Desert. "As of Jan. 1, there have been no new installs."
He said a YMCA in Palm Desert decided against a solar system after managers concluded that future savings on electricity would not cover the cost of installing the rooftop panels.
Under the new program, homeowners filed rebate applications for systems generating 1,415 kilowatts of solar power statewide in the first three months of this year. A year earlier under the previous program, the state approved applications totaling 6,417 kilowatts.
Embarrassed state officials are scrambling to fix the problem.
"The fact that some customers may find themselves paying higher electricity bills if they decide to install solar … is unfortunate and indeed perverse," California PUC President Michael R. Peevey said in a recent letter to legislators.
"It's sort of a screw-up," said solar advocate V. John White, executive director of the Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technology in Sacramento.
On the hot seat is Schwarzenegger, who in August signed legislation that sought to provide $3 billion in rebates over 10 years to boost the use of nonpolluting solar power.
Only last month, he bragged about his California Solar Initiative in an Earth Day radio address — with no mention of its lack of early success.
Bill Maile, a spokesman for the governor, conceded that the solar program was flawed. The administration is considering asking the Legislature to quickly pass a law that would make solar power more affordable, he said.
The governor also asked the PUC to work with the state's three investor-owned utilities to come up with "a properly designed rate structure" that doesn't penalize solar owners, Maile said.
Posted by: THE ATTENDANT | June 07, 2007 at 04:37 PM
Here is an example of a positive development:
http://www.newsvine.com/_news/2007/06/06/760262-lawmaker-backs-of-rules-for-wind-energy
Lawmaker Backs Off Rules for Wind Energy
H. Josef Hebert, AP Writer
A House committee chairman from a coal-producing state backed away Wednesday from requiring regulations for the wind energy industry to protect birds and bats, rules the industry said would halt development of wind farms as an alternative to coal.
Natural Resources Committee Chairman Nick Rahall, D-W.Va., had put into an energy bill a requirement that the Interior Department regulate the siting and operation of energy wind turbines to ensure the safety of wildlife.
His action unleashed intense lobbying by the wind industry and renewable energy advocates, who argued that such restrictions would stop wind farm development at a time when wind is viewed as the most viable renewable alternative to fossil fuels and nuclear power for producing electricity.
As his committee began final crafting of the energy package Wednesday, Rahall relented and agreed to support, instead, a less-sweeping measure offered by Rep. Edward Markey, D-Mass. It calls on the Interior Department to develop "guidelines" for protection of wildlife from wind turbines, not regulations.
"I think it was a good compromise. It will allow the development of wind and still allow for a process" to protect wildlife, Rahall said after his committee recessed for the day. A final vote on the energy package was expected Thursday.
This "will allow wind power to continue to thrive," said Markey. Rahall said he expects Markey's amendment to get final approval, although it must still go through a formal committee vote.
The turnaround also shows the increasing political clout of the wind industry, which includes such corporate giants as General Electric Co. The industry's trade association has more than 1,000 members, compared to a few hundred five years ago.
Electricity from wind turbines serves some 3 million homes, although wind power still accounts for less than 1 percent of the total electricity produced. Coal is burned to produce more than half of the country's electricity, and nuclear reactors account for about 20 percent.
As Congress prepares to consider legislation that would require utilities to produce 15 percent of their electricity from renewable sources, wind is viewed as increasingly critical and likely would be used to meet the largest portion of that mandate.
"We turned around what was a very bad provision," said Jaime Steve, legislative affairs director for the American Wind Energy Association, referring to getting Rahall to back away from his original proposal. It would have required the Interior Department to develop regulations affecting surveys, siting, operation and monitoring standards for wind energy projects to determine their impact on migratory birds, bats and other wildlife.
The industry cited a National Academy of Sciences study that said wind turbines accounted for only three of every 100,000 bird deaths. Domestic cats kill 1,000 times as many birds as wind turbines, Steve said, citing another study.
The wind energy industry has been growing at more than 25 percent a year. It installed more than 2,400 megawatts of capacity last year with an expectation of 3,000 additional megawatts this year.
Republicans on the Natural Resources Committee attacked the broader energy legislation that the committee is expected to approved Thursday, saying it does nothing to produce more energy and, in fact, rolls back some measures approved by Congress two years ago that were aimed at streamlining the permitting process for oil and gas development on federal lands.
"I call this the national energy suicide bill," declared Rep. Don Young of Alaska, the ranking Republican on the committee. "This bill does nothing for coal. It does nothing to get more natural gas or about our ability to produce any more oil on shore and off shore. It discourages it."
Rahall said the legislation corrects some of the "excesses" given the oil and gas industry by Congress in 2005 when Republicans were in the majority.
Posted by: THE ATTENDANT | June 07, 2007 at 04:41 PM